To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

ON THE BRINK OF DISASTER
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, in
accordance with the unanimous-consent
agreement previously entered into, I
believe this is an appropriate time for the
clerk to read the speech prepared for
delivery today by the distinguished Senator
from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will read the speech prepared by
the Senator from Arkansas.
The legislative clerk read Mr.
Fulbright's speech, as follows:
Mr. President, at this moment no one
knows whether the United States
military forces in Lebanon will be plunged
deeper into the Middle East or whether
an opportunity will arise in the near
future to withdraw them. Certainly,
it is the expressed hope of the
executive branch, and I am sure the unspoken
hope of most Americans, that these
forces will be able to leave the area
promptly. While they are still there,
they deserve our support. The decision
which put them into the Middle East
was not theirs to make, though they
will bear the brunt of any drastic
consequences which may stem from it.
The safety of the men in the Middle
East is our primary concern at the
moment; but if we limit our concern
to considerations of the moment, we
will not really solve anything. We must
look at the basic causes of our troops
being in Lebanon. When we do that,
we find that our present trouble in the
Middle East is merely symptomatic of
a much more serious malady.
The truth is. Mr. President, that our
foreign policy is inadequate, outmoded,
and misdirected. It is based in part on
A false conception of our real, long-term
national interests and in part on an
erroneous appraisal of the state of the
world in which we live. Worse, it
reflects a dangerous apathy and a quite
incomprehensible unwillingness to look
facts in the face.
We should put off no longer a complete
reconsideration and reorientation
of our foreign policy. We have already
waited far too long.
Time and again we have put things
off. Time and again we have drifted
until circumstances reached an
intolerable state, and then we have rushed to
the brink. This time we have even put
one foot over the brink. There we
dangle, waiting and wondering what
will come next. We are now looking
squarely into the abyss of war, a war
which we do not seek and which can
only have the most catastrophic
consequences for ell humanity.
But the issue of peace or war is only
one of our problems. Equally
troublesome—and a good deal more
complicated—are the questions of what our
long-term position in the world is going
to be and of what specific kind of world
we think would best serve our long-term
interests. It is no answer to say we want
to live at peace in a free, peaceful, and
secure world, That is a hope which we
all share, but it is only a hope: it is not a
policy.
My fear, Mr. President, is that, if we
continue as we have been and are, we
will lose so much ground diplomatically,
politically, and economically that the
question of a shooting war will really
become irrelevant.
Before our remaining toeholds pro, it is
time that we stop to look at where we
are. Even more important, it is time to
ask ourselves how we have gotten into
this predicament. Only the blindest of
optimism would interpret our international
position as a secure one. The fact
is that we are in trouble, very deep
trouble, regardless of what happens next
in the Middle East. The exposed position
we now occupy in that area is only one
reflection of that trouble.
A year ago we had another reflection
of it, when the Soviet Union launched the
first of the sputniks. That event told us
what many already knew, but what this
Government chose to ignore. It told us
that there had grown up elsewhere in
the world a capacity for scientific, intellectual,
and technical achievements,
which if it had not already done so
would soon surpass our own. This had
happened in a country and under a system
which was hostile to our own and to
the freedom which we cherish. It upset
the basic assumption upon which our
defense had rested since World War II,
the assumption of our ability to maintain
a substantial scientific and technical
supremacy in this country. The launching
of the first sputnik shocked us, Mr.
President, into a momentary confrontation
with reality. Some of us recognized
that for years this Nation had wallowed
in a kind of fool's paradise in jolly and
supercilious complacency while
elsewhere others of more serious bent of
mind had worked. There was a realization
that we had seriously neglected
education. There was a realization that
others had labored while we had loafed.
The reformation was momentary. The
smug and apathetic tendencies of our
leadership soon spread to the rest of the
Nation. On the one hand, there was a
disposition to live with the fact that our
scientific leadership was either gone or
going fast: on the other hand, there was
the delusion that perhaps the sputnik
was not very important—a bauble. I
believe somebody called it. After all, we
still had the Strategic Air Command and
intercontinental missiles and perhaps
even a shot at the moon on the way. So
we went back to business as usual and
pleasure as usual.
Then a few weeks ago. events occurred
in Latin America to remind us of the
precariousness of our position in the world.
There, in an area with which we had
once enjoyed a most cordial, friendly, and
intimate association: in this area
regarded as safe, above all others, a
symbolic explosion occurred, no less
startling in its impact on the Nation than
the first sputnik. A few years back, a
former Vice President had been greeted
with almost hysterical approval in Latin
America. The present- Vice President
was spat upon and stoned. This, too,
was a measure of how far we had fallen.
This. too. gave us cause to think. What
had we done? After all. this outburst of
resentment and fury was directed at
something besides Mr. Nixon as a person.
Once again, for a brief time, we

ON THE BRINK OF DISASTER
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, in
accordance with the unanimous-consent
agreement previously entered into, I
believe this is an appropriate time for the
clerk to read the speech prepared for
delivery today by the distinguished Senator
from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will read the speech prepared by
the Senator from Arkansas.
The legislative clerk read Mr.
Fulbright's speech, as follows:
Mr. President, at this moment no one
knows whether the United States
military forces in Lebanon will be plunged
deeper into the Middle East or whether
an opportunity will arise in the near
future to withdraw them. Certainly,
it is the expressed hope of the
executive branch, and I am sure the unspoken
hope of most Americans, that these
forces will be able to leave the area
promptly. While they are still there,
they deserve our support. The decision
which put them into the Middle East
was not theirs to make, though they
will bear the brunt of any drastic
consequences which may stem from it.
The safety of the men in the Middle
East is our primary concern at the
moment; but if we limit our concern
to considerations of the moment, we
will not really solve anything. We must
look at the basic causes of our troops
being in Lebanon. When we do that,
we find that our present trouble in the
Middle East is merely symptomatic of
a much more serious malady.
The truth is. Mr. President, that our
foreign policy is inadequate, outmoded,
and misdirected. It is based in part on
A false conception of our real, long-term
national interests and in part on an
erroneous appraisal of the state of the
world in which we live. Worse, it
reflects a dangerous apathy and a quite
incomprehensible unwillingness to look
facts in the face.
We should put off no longer a complete
reconsideration and reorientation
of our foreign policy. We have already
waited far too long.
Time and again we have put things
off. Time and again we have drifted
until circumstances reached an
intolerable state, and then we have rushed to
the brink. This time we have even put
one foot over the brink. There we
dangle, waiting and wondering what
will come next. We are now looking
squarely into the abyss of war, a war
which we do not seek and which can
only have the most catastrophic
consequences for ell humanity.
But the issue of peace or war is only
one of our problems. Equally
troublesome—and a good deal more
complicated—are the questions of what our
long-term position in the world is going
to be and of what specific kind of world
we think would best serve our long-term
interests. It is no answer to say we want
to live at peace in a free, peaceful, and
secure world, That is a hope which we
all share, but it is only a hope: it is not a
policy.
My fear, Mr. President, is that, if we
continue as we have been and are, we
will lose so much ground diplomatically,
politically, and economically that the
question of a shooting war will really
become irrelevant.
Before our remaining toeholds pro, it is
time that we stop to look at where we
are. Even more important, it is time to
ask ourselves how we have gotten into
this predicament. Only the blindest of
optimism would interpret our international
position as a secure one. The fact
is that we are in trouble, very deep
trouble, regardless of what happens next
in the Middle East. The exposed position
we now occupy in that area is only one
reflection of that trouble.
A year ago we had another reflection
of it, when the Soviet Union launched the
first of the sputniks. That event told us
what many already knew, but what this
Government chose to ignore. It told us
that there had grown up elsewhere in
the world a capacity for scientific, intellectual,
and technical achievements,
which if it had not already done so
would soon surpass our own. This had
happened in a country and under a system
which was hostile to our own and to
the freedom which we cherish. It upset
the basic assumption upon which our
defense had rested since World War II,
the assumption of our ability to maintain
a substantial scientific and technical
supremacy in this country. The launching
of the first sputnik shocked us, Mr.
President, into a momentary confrontation
with reality. Some of us recognized
that for years this Nation had wallowed
in a kind of fool's paradise in jolly and
supercilious complacency while
elsewhere others of more serious bent of
mind had worked. There was a realization
that we had seriously neglected
education. There was a realization that
others had labored while we had loafed.
The reformation was momentary. The
smug and apathetic tendencies of our
leadership soon spread to the rest of the
Nation. On the one hand, there was a
disposition to live with the fact that our
scientific leadership was either gone or
going fast: on the other hand, there was
the delusion that perhaps the sputnik
was not very important—a bauble. I
believe somebody called it. After all, we
still had the Strategic Air Command and
intercontinental missiles and perhaps
even a shot at the moon on the way. So
we went back to business as usual and
pleasure as usual.
Then a few weeks ago. events occurred
in Latin America to remind us of the
precariousness of our position in the world.
There, in an area with which we had
once enjoyed a most cordial, friendly, and
intimate association: in this area
regarded as safe, above all others, a
symbolic explosion occurred, no less
startling in its impact on the Nation than
the first sputnik. A few years back, a
former Vice President had been greeted
with almost hysterical approval in Latin
America. The present- Vice President
was spat upon and stoned. This, too,
was a measure of how far we had fallen.
This. too. gave us cause to think. What
had we done? After all. this outburst of
resentment and fury was directed at
something besides Mr. Nixon as a person.
Once again, for a brief time, we